[gartinmale]

Yesterday in an ACBL Swiss, sitting South, the following auction occurred:

---

Partner opened a strong artificial 1♦, West doubled an artificial 1♥, and nobody saw any reason to disturb it (particularly not me, as I held Kxxxx of hearts).

West led the heart T. When dummy hit I noted that we had an eight card heart fit missing the QT9, and that West had helpfully picked up the suit for me.

It was clear when East showed up with the heart Q and both followed to two rounds of trump that West did not intend the double to show hearts. They had briefly discussed their defenses before the match and so had an agreement about the double, although it wasn't clear to me what that was. It was also barely possible that our counterparts would be in 4H at the other table. To maximize the potential for overtricks it seemed necessary to figure out exactly what West's double showed - I suspected either 'the "unbid" suits' or 'suction: spades OR both minors', since they had discussed suction overcalls before the match, but it could have been something else as well - say, takeout of hearts.

1) In a situation like this, is it legal/ethical to ask East questions until he remembers their agreement? (At the table I refrained).

2) Similarly, I remember reading about a situation in a national pairs where Kit Woolsey opened a precision 1D, his partner bid 1H, and his RHO overcalled 2D (or some analogous auction - my memory isn't terrific). The point is that Kit's responses depended upon whether or not 2D was natural or artificial. His LHO remembered they had an agreement but did not remember what it was. Eventually the director sent LHO away from the table and had RHO announce to Kit and his partner what meaning he intended. If this is appropriate during the bidding, why not the play?

[barmar]

I think this is one of those situations where experienced players are expected to protect themselves. Once dummy comes down, it's pretty obvious that the double was special, and you certainly have a right to know what the agreement is. Ask East, and if he's not sure call the director. I'd expect him to do similarly to the director in your Woolsey story -- I don't see why it should matter whether it's during the auction or play.

[blackshoe]

Did you look at their system card?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-29, 12:06, said:

Did you look at their system card?

He said he heard them discussing this right before the match. Seems like there's a good chance it wouldn't have made it onto the CC.

[CSGibson]

It is legal to ask questions about their agreements as long as you are doing so for your own benefit, and not partner's.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-October-29, 12:14, said:

He said he heard them discussing this right before the match. Seems like there's a good chance it wouldn't have made it onto the CC.

Granted. If it was me, I'd still look.

CSGibson, on 2012-October-29, 12:22, said:

It is legal to ask questions about their agreements as long as you are doing so for your own benefit, and not partner's.

Not solely for partner's benefit, surely. Your construction suggests that if partner may benefit from the answer, you cannot ask, and that is not the case.

[gartinmale]

Nothing on their system card.

I was declarer, not dummy, so fortunately the asking would have been for my benefit.

Let's say they hadn't discussed anything. Would I have been allowed to ask what defense(s) they play to a strong club? To a strong club and a negative response?

[blackshoe]

Once the opening lead is faced, dummy is not allowed to ask any questions about the bidding until the hand is over.

Whether they've discussed anything does not affect your right to ask questions about the actual auction. In this case, if they have a defense to strong club auctions, but have not discussed strong diamond auctions, it seems to me their defense to strong club auctions is pertinent, since it's reasonable to extrapolate from them to the actual situation. The basic principle is that when any question is asked, all pertinent information should be disclosed, so in theory if you ask about their agreements with respect to strong diamond auctions, and they don't have any, but have agreements with respect to strong club auctions, the latter agreements should be provided automatically. If they aren't mentioned, you're certainly entitled to ask. If they balk, call the director.

[gartinmale]

Again, I was declarer. I don't know where the idea of dummy asking came into this, but if it was something I wrote that was unclear please tell me so that I may reword it / be more careful in the future.

I appreciate the answers - it was unclear to me where the limitations came in here had they neglected a defense.

Unfortunately we are often in a situation like this playing a strong diamond system. If partner opens 1♦ and righty doubles, the meaning of our redouble depends upon the meaning of double (it is one thing if X shows diamonds, another if X shows the majors, and a third if X shows general values/takeout of diamonds - all three of which people have played against us without discussion. We do pre-alert the strong diamond but many pairs decline to discuss a defense).

In this case we were able to get out of it okay, although partner's pass over the double would have had a different meaning if it had been known to be, say, suction.

[blackshoe]

You mentioned that you were not dummy. I just wanted to clarify for the general reader that dummy isn't allowed to ask, though I was pretty sure you knew that.

If people are saying X is "undiscussed", and yet both members of the pair are on the same page as to its meaning, I would wonder what they neglected to disclose, unless the chosen meaning is "I have that suit", which might be considered "knowledge generally available to bridge players". Or maybe not. I confess the logic behind what is and is not "general bridge knowledge" sometimes escapes me.

[bluejak]

gartinmale, on 2012-October-29, 10:36, said:

Eventually the director sent LHO away from the table and had RHO announce to Kit and his partner what meaning he intended. If this is appropriate during the bidding, why not the play?

It is appropriate during the play.

[barmar]

gartinmale, on 2012-October-29, 14:09, said:

Let's say they hadn't discussed anything. Would I have been allowed to ask what defense(s) they play to a strong club? To a strong club and a negative response?

From Law 20F:

Quote

1. During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding....

2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

I don't think that allows you to ask about calls that would be made in a totally different auction. But maybe if they haven't discussed a defense to strong ♦, their defense to strong ♣ could be considered a "relevant inference".

[gnasher]

gartinmale, on 2012-October-29, 17:32, said:

Unfortunately we are often in a situation like this playing a strong diamond system. If partner opens 1♦ and righty doubles, the meaning of our redouble depends upon the meaning of double (it is one thing if X shows diamonds, another if X shows the majors, and a third if X shows general values/takeout of diamonds - all three of which people have played against us without discussion. We do pre-alert the strong diamond but many pairs decline to discuss a defense).

So make an agreement about what you play over an undiscussed double.

[blackshoe]

I was thinking "agree to act as if it shows the suit doubled".

[mjj29]

I also play a strong diamond, this also comes up a lot for us. It's definitely fine to ask about their defense in similar situations (such as a strong club) and use the inferences from that. You probably want to agree with your partner how your going to treat that in advance though. If 1C-X is clubs and hearts, for example, do you think they will play 1D-X as clubs and hearts, or diamonds and spades. You're also not allowed to discuss that during the hand (-:

The really interesting question, I think, is what you do when they don't look at your card 'because it's a two-board round', you open 1D (alerted) and it's doubled without asking what it means. Maybe that's obviously takeout of diamonds though (-:

[CamHenry]

mjj29, on 2012-October-31, 03:06, said:

I also play a strong diamond, this also comes up a lot for us. It's definitely fine to ask about their defense in similar situations (such as a strong club) and use the inferences from that. You probably want to agree with your partner how your going to treat that in advance though. If 1C-X is clubs and hearts, for example, do you think they will play 1D-X as clubs and hearts, or diamonds and spades. You're also not allowed to discuss that during the hand (-:

The really interesting question, I think, is what you do when they don't look at your card 'because it's a two-board round', you open 1D (alerted) and it's doubled without asking what it means. Maybe that's obviously takeout of diamonds though (-:

I maintain that "double them for penalties if at all possible" is a good policy here!

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-29, 12:06, said:

Did you look at their system card?

Where would you look?

[blackshoe]

TimG, on 2012-November-11, 18:25, said:

Where would you look?

Probably in the approximately two square inches of space available at the bottom of the front of the card.